More stupidity about nuked-up Cessnas

[R.L.]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html

[Steve Foley]

Absolutely the worst research I've seen:


"That has again raised the question of whether enough is being done to
secure the more than 19,000 small airports scattered across the nation"

"After 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration closed all small airports
for almost three months while officials contemplated whether to require bag
searches, metal detectors, and other such security measures"

"Last week in Connecticut, an allegedly inebriated student pilot took two
teenagers out for a five-hour jaunt before being detected and forced to
land."




"R.L." > wrote in message
. com...
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "R.L." > said:
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html
>

At least give them credit for the last two paragraphs:

But other analysts note that threats need to be put into context. For
instance, trucks or boats can carry far more explosives than most small
planes. They're also easier to get into large metropolitan areas.

"There's a tendency to overreact to potential aviation threats because
people view them in isolation instead of viewing them in terms of other
threats," says Clint Oster, a transportation economist at Indiana
University in Bloomington. "The real issue is that we need to have a
systematic way of assessing big threats from little ones."



--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You really know you're in trouble when your boss decides upon a suicide
pact... and agrees to go first.
-- Chris King

[S.]

"R.L." > wrote in message
. com...
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html
>


I love the 2nd headline :- "Some 19,000 small airports across the US have
varied safeguards".

For me, this falls into the "Christmas Day expected to fall on December 25th
this year" school of "journalism".

[Andrew Gideon]

S. wrote:

> For me, this falls into the "Christmas Day expected to fall on December
> 25th this year" school of "journalism".

I be impressed by that from a journalist; it's not wrong.

- Andrew

[Centurion]

R.L. wrote:

> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html

We have the same problem here in Australia:
http://www.grayonline.id.au/C150-Irony.pdf (25 KB - dial-up safe)

Shamelessly adapted from a bumper-sticker, and presented for your
crew-room/cube-farm pleasure :)

Cheers,

James
--
There are people who find it odd to eat four or five Chinese meals
in a row; in China, I often remind them, there are a billion or so
people who find nothing odd about it.
-- Calvin Trillin

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:59:53 GMT, "R.L." > wrote in
>::

>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html
>

Perhaps the thing to do is to e-mail the author of the article, Ms.
Alexandra Marks, and educate her about how absurd the fear of little
GA aircraft is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=C1ECE5F8E1EEE4F2E1A0CDE1F2EBF3&url=/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html

She'll probably respond with something regarding this:

But security experts counter that Al Qaeda has a history of
planning to use small aircraft in attacks. Soon after 9/11,
investigators uncovered a plan to use a small plane packed with
explosives to attack the US Embassy in Pakistan. Mohammad Atta,
one of the 9/11 hijackers, had applied for a loan to buy a crop
duster. And Zacarias Massouwi, the alleged 20th hijacker, had a
crop-dusting manual with him when he was arrested.

"I don't think these guys were interested in farming," says
Professor Thomas.

If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
trucks being used for terrorist purposes.

The fact is, regardless of what terrorists _planned_ to do with small
aircraft, they _used_ heavy AIRLINERS filled with _tons_ of fuel in
their attacks on September 11, 2001, not GA aircraft. And the last I
heard, security of airline flights is no better since we spent
_billions_ in security efforts than it was on September 11, 2001.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>Perhaps the thing to do is to e-mail the author of the article, Ms.
>Alexandra Marks, and educate her about how absurd the fear of little
>GA aircraft is:

You did read the WHOLE article, didn't you? The last two paragraphs, the
most important part of any article, where she says several things that
you'd probably agree with?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....the default behaviour should be *not* to **** up.
-- adb

[NW_PILOT]

"R.L." > wrote in message
. com...
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html
>
>

Look who the article is coming from a Christian organization that is so
called non profit but thrive upon putting fear in to people, they use fear
to control the mindless masses!

[Greg Farris]

Paul has it right.
The article shows that the author did her homework, and reported the AOPA
side of the story fairly accurately. That's proof that it's working, and we
have to keep hammering away at it.

Meanwhile - the world has changed, and no, it is no longer cool to park an
aiplane in an open access area with the key readily available. Get
real, and get over it.

G Faris

[Kev]

>If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
>against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
>trucks being used for terrorist purposes.

But people don't think that will happen, so they're not impacted.

AOPA should team up with boating orgranizations. Start pointing out
that if GA is locked down because of 9/11, then if a small boat is used
next for terrorism, boating might get hit too. There would be a much
larger outcry from the public over boat restrictions than we'll get
from pilots over airplanes.

Kev

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:07:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >::

>In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>Perhaps the thing to do is to e-mail the author of the article, Ms.
>>Alexandra Marks, and educate her about how absurd the fear of little
>>GA aircraft is:
>
>You did read the WHOLE article, didn't you? The last two paragraphs, the
>most important part of any article, where she says several things that
>you'd probably agree with?

Yes. I read the WHOLE article. It seemed to question the security of
GA aircraft as possible terrorists weapons. The fact that she thought
that issue worth publicizing calls her journalistic ethics into
question IMO.

[Larry Dighera]

On 29 Jun 2005 15:51:11 -0700, "Kev" > wrote in
. com>::

>>If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
>>against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
>>trucks being used for terrorist purposes.
>
>But people don't think that will happen, so they're not impacted.

If we question the TSA's failure to address automobile and truck
security, perhaps they'll be forced to issue a position statement on
that subject that could be applied to GA aircraft.

>AOPA should team up with boating orgranizations. Start pointing out
>that if GA is locked down because of 9/11, then if a small boat is used
>next for terrorism, boating might get hit too. There would be a much
>larger outcry from the public over boat restrictions than we'll get
>from pilots over airplanes.
>
>Kev

That seems like an excellent suggestion.

[nrp]

How about off-road motorcycles? They could carry amost as much as a
Cessna 150, & with a skilled operator can go up stairs & even thru a
door etc.

[Franklin Newton]

They have already used small boats and they are a much more effective weapon
than a C150 (USS COLE).
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jun 2005 15:51:11 -0700, "Kev" > wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >>If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
> >>against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
> >>trucks being used for terrorist purposes.
> >
> >But people don't think that will happen, so they're not impacted.
>
> If we question the TSA's failure to address automobile and truck
> security, perhaps they'll be forced to issue a position statement on
> that subject that could be applied to GA aircraft.
>
> >AOPA should team up with boating orgranizations. Start pointing out
> >that if GA is locked down because of 9/11, then if a small boat is used
> >next for terrorism, boating might get hit too. There would be a much
> >larger outcry from the public over boat restrictions than we'll get
> >from pilots over airplanes.
> >
> >Kev
>
> That seems like an excellent suggestion.

[NW_PILOT]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
> >against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
> >trucks being used for terrorist purposes.
>
> But people don't think that will happen, so they're not impacted.
>
> AOPA should team up with boating orgranizations. Start pointing out
> that if GA is locked down because of 9/11, then if a small boat is used
> next for terrorism, boating might get hit too. There would be a much
> larger outcry from the public over boat restrictions than we'll get
> from pilots over airplanes.
>
> Kev
>

Us Americans just lost our right to freedom of speech and expression due to
the new Internet obscenity law

[S.]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> S. wrote:
>
>> For me, this falls into the "Christmas Day expected to fall on December
>> 25th this year" school of "journalism".
>
> I be impressed by that from a journalist; it's not wrong.

LOL. Nice !


S.

[Andrew Gideon]

Franklin Newton wrote:

> They have already used small boats and they are a much more effective
> weapon than a C150 (USS COLE).

If AOPA chose to go on the offensive, it could collect/provide statistics on
the use/success rates of various vehicle types as terrorist weapons.

I'd not mind seeing airlines forced out of Newark (EWR), for example, into a
new TSA-approved airport in the middle of nowhere. Newark would make a
great GA airport <grin>.

- Andrew

[John Galban]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Paul has it right.
> The article shows that the author did her homework, and reported the AOPA
> side of the story fairly accurately. That's proof that it's working, and we
> have to keep hammering away at it.

While there were some accurate statemnents, saying that this author
did her homework seems a bit over the top. You must have a much lower
standard for your news than I do. Were GA airports really closed down
for 3 months following 9/11 while the TSA pondered searches and metal
detectors at those types of airports? If that really happened, I must
have just arrived from a parallel universe. Was the drunk 20-something
kid who stole the plane last week flying around for 5 hrs. (no) until
he was "detected" (no) and forced to land (no)? It would seem to me
that the most basic surfing of a few actual news sites would have
provided some factual information concerning these events. This story
has all the earmarks of someone who was just too lazy to do even the
most basic research.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> Meanwhile - the world has changed, and no, it is no longer cool to park an
> aiplane in an open access area with the key readily available. Get
> real, and get over it.
>
> G Faris

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
> against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
> trucks being used for terrorist purposes.


Since most folks drive, there isn't a push or desire to restrict THEIR
freedoms. They have no problem, however, in restricting YOUR freedom to
fly.



JKG

[George Patterson]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> Newark would make a great GA airport <grin>.

It would be condos in no time.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Charles Oppermann]

> The article shows that the author did her homework, and reported the AOPA
> side of the story fairly accurately. That's proof that it's working, and
> we
> have to keep hammering away at it.

By including a couple of paragraphs with differing views isn't doing her
home work. Good example right at the top:

"After 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration closed all small airports
for almost three months while officials contemplated whether to require bag
searches, metal detectors, and other such security measures."

All small airports closed for three months? Excuse me?

Yes the article does wind up presenting both sides of the story, but in a
typical attention grabbing ways, it fosters the perception of small planes =
terrorist threat.

Quoting one professor who says that Al Qaeda wants small planes frames the
story. Even though several unattributed statements are presenting scoffing
at the threats, the author clearly wants the reader to come away thinking
about a vague threat. Fear is a great motivator.

I could imagine what she'd write about the Old World...

"Dateline Spain, 1492AD. Since the first sailors took the water, it's been
assumed that going traveling too far will result in certain death - either
from sea serpents or simply falling off the edge of Earth. Although
astronomers have said for centuries that the world is a sphere, many critics
disagree - citing countless examples of where ships have traveled out of
sight and never returned. Christopher Columbus is on one such journey, to
find a new trading route to India. While Columbus claims confidence in the
'world-is-round' theory, some critics have noted that no word as to his
whereabouts has been forthcoming...."

> Meanwhile - the world has changed, and no, it is no longer cool to park an
> aiplane in an open access area with the key readily available. Get
> real, and get over it.

I disagree that the world changed, but that's another argument.

When was it ever cool to leave a key in a plane? I don't think the rate of
stolen aircraft has changed one way or another after 9/11. There is a much
greater risk to having your plane or radios stolen (with key available or
not) than there is of it being stolen and used in a terrorist operation.

[Jose]

> Meanwhile - the world has changed, and no, it is no longer cool to park an
> aiplane in an open access area with the key readily available. Get
> real, and get over it.

I take it you are referring to the DXR (Danbury CT) drunken joyride to
HPN (Westchester NY). I'm based at DXR, and spoke with the airport
manager, an instructor at the FBO whose plane was stolen, and several
other people who are very close to the incident. The key was not
"readily available", and all keys to the plane were accounted for.
However, it is likely that keys to another plane also happened to work
on this plane, and the person who stole the plane likely had access to
some of these other keys, being as he was a maintenance apprentice of
some sort.

Airplane keys are just not all that secure. They don't have that many
pins, and they are not high quality. (Nor would high quality keys and
locks make much of a difference when clipping the grounding lead and
swinging the prop will get the engine going).

The airplane was not in an "open access" area - Danbury is fenced in all
around. A gate was apparantly broken by the intruder. Granted, it
might not have been a jail-quality gate, but is that the way we really
want to live? Even if it were, good wirecutters would get through a
fence pretty easily.

And if not at Danbury, at any number of tiny strips all over the
country, where people believe in freedom and the integrety of their
fellow citizens.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:35:32 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>::

>Since most folks drive, there isn't a push or desire to restrict THEIR
>freedoms.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority. It'll take real statesmen to save us
from that.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:22:23 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>I take it you are referring to the DXR (Danbury CT)

He was probably referring to the 14 year old in Alabama. The keys
were on the clipboard in the C-150's unlocked cockpit.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >Since most folks drive, there isn't a push or desire to restrict THEIR
> >freedoms.
>
> Ah, the tyranny of the majority. It'll take real statesmen to save us
> from that.


Why do you think it's so easy to get a driver's license? No politician
wants to tell grandma that she can't have a driver's license anymore.



JKG

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>I disagree that the world changed, but that's another argument.
>
>When was it ever cool to leave a key in a plane? I don't think the rate of
>stolen aircraft has changed one way or another after 9/11. There is a much
>greater risk to having your plane or radios stolen (with key available or
>not) than there is of it being stolen and used in a terrorist operation.
>

I agree with both statements. But public perception has changed (maybe "the
world has changed" is a bit over the top, but that's what I meant). And it's
not completely a bad thing - a little better security isn't going to hurt us
that much. Planes were stolen before 9/11, and though less publicized, that
was equally dangerous.
If, as a pilot community, we do not show some responsiveness to public
concern, however mis-informed we consider some of it to be, we will be taken
to task for that attitude, and the medecine could get very bitter. Politics is
part of life - stubborn failure to recognize this weakens us considerably.

G Faris

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> a little better security isn't going to hurt us that much.

A little better security might even be a good thing. But but but
what is being pushed on us now isn't "little," "better," or even "security."

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article >, Greg Farris >
>wrote:
>
>> a little better security isn't going to hurt us that much.
>
>A little better security might even be a good thing. But but but
>what is being pushed on us now isn't "little," "better," or even "security."
>

Well, that's certainly true in a large sense,but asking pilots not to leave
the key in their plane is a "little" thing, I believe it is better, and it is
certainly more secure.

I'm not disagreeing with you, or others here about how bad some recent
proposed measures are, but one of the publicized cases recently apparently did
involve such a stupid security lapse. That type of thing would require very
little effort to reduce or eliminate, and it brings bad press, in big neon
lights to everyone in the nation.

G Faris

[Charles Oppermann]

>> >Since most folks drive, there isn't a push or desire to restrict THEIR
>> >freedoms.
>>
>> Ah, the tyranny of the majority. It'll take real statesmen to save us
>> from that.
>
> Why do you think it's so easy to get a driver's license? No politician
> wants to tell grandma that she can't have a driver's license anymore.

I don't think you are, but let us all remember to not confuse a drivers
*license* with a pilots *certificate*. The roads are owned (generally) by
government - the skies are not. I don't want to see politicians think of
airspace in the same way they think of road and rail travel. *shudder*

[Matt Whiting]

Charles Oppermann wrote:

>>>>Since most folks drive, there isn't a push or desire to restrict THEIR
>>>>freedoms.
>>>
>>>Ah, the tyranny of the majority. It'll take real statesmen to save us
>>>from that.
>>
>>Why do you think it's so easy to get a driver's license? No politician
>>wants to tell grandma that she can't have a driver's license anymore.
>
>
> I don't think you are, but let us all remember to not confuse a drivers
> *license* with a pilots *certificate*. The roads are owned (generally) by
> government - the skies are not. I don't want to see politicians think of
> airspace in the same way they think of road and rail travel. *shudder*

Depends on how you define ownership I guess, but I think the government
"owns" the skies by any reasonable definition.


Matt